Should we spike this electoral board system?

All's fair in love and politics, so trying to shoot an arrow through the heart of a candidate's petitions to run for office is a rite of passage when local elections roll around every other spring.

This season is no different, with challenges on grounds ranging from the serious - does the mayor really live in the town he governs? - to what some people might call nitpicky: Listing a school's district number as "505" instead of the correct "502." (That's College of DuPage, btw.)

You can debate the fairness of these challenges all day - but I'm amazed no one has brought up the idea of challenging the system we have in place to hear these official complaints about a candidate's paperwork. Who sits in judgment on whether a candidate dotted his i's and crossed his t's? By and large, his political friends or foes. And, inevitably, someone is gonna scream bloody murder.

Supporters of Frank Soto, seeking to topple John Geils' 24-year rein as Bensenville village president, alleged Geils doesn't live in the town he has so passionately defended against the wrecking balls of the city of Chicago to make way for the expansion of O'Hare Airport. It took nearly eight hours for the local electoral board to hear all the evidence and rule in Geils favor.

But, in a stunning development, the other side filed an appeal in DuPage County Circuit Court, claiming that the local electoral board - the village clerk and two trustees - was comprised of Geils supporters and biased in his favor.

Meanwhile, we're waiting to see if Brian Guimon files a lawsuit to get a spot on the ballot to run for Addison Township assessor. He didn't even get as far as the impaneling of a local electoral board; he was booted from the ballot by Township Clerk Pamela Moretti who said Guimon's paperwork didn't properly present his qualifications for office. Local Democrats, of which Guimon is one, are suggesting bias on the part of the Republican clerk.

I'm not suggesting any of these people can't be impartial; in fact, after a huge outcry of unfairness over two incumbent College of DuPage trustees, both seeking re-election, hearing objections to other candidates, they allowed five of seven to remain on the ballot.

Nor am I saying any of these electoral boards have done anything wrong - the law generally calls for the empaneling of a government's clerk and its two senior elected members to hear ballot challenges.

What I am suggesting, though, is this: Is this setup a good idea? Why does it remain in place? Why do we have system that creates the perception that challenged candidates won't get a fair shake from their political foes, but the wink of an eye and a pass from their political pals?

There's a new wrinkle this year complicating matters even more - our new technology.

I gather because the Geils objection was so lengthy and complicated, Judge Bonnie Wheaton won't decide until March 16, less than a month before the election, whether Geils should be removed from the ballot. If she says "yes" that will wreak havoc with the voting machines that are programmed way in advance and have codes that will change countywide if one name is removed and other computer stuff I don't understand.

And what if Guimon successfully reclaims a spot on the ballot? What kind of chaos will ensue with two late-breaking adjustments to make?

I'm sure there are all sorts of problems I'm not seeing, but just to start the ball rolling on some much-needed discussion on this electoral board quagmire, how about this: When a candidate is challenged, say, in Bensenville, how about convening an electoral board in Naperville? Or, how about taking such objections directly to a judge? And perhaps to avoid clogging the court system, set a higher threshold to weed out some of the more frivolous complaints?

Something to think about?

jdavis@dailyherald.com